Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

Brief intervention to reduce risky drinking in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Risky drinking in pregnancy by UK women is likely to result in many alcohol-exposed pregnancies. Studies from the USA suggest that brief intervention has promise for alcohol risk reduction in antenatal care. However, further research is needed to establish whether this evidence from the USA is applicable to the UK. This pilot study aims to investigate whether pregnant women can be recruited and retained in a randomized controlled trial of brief intervention aimed at reducing risky drinking in women receiving antenatal care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The trial will rehearse the parallel-group, non-blinded design and procedures of a subsequent definitive trial. Over 8 months, women aged 18 years and over (target number 2,742) attending their booking appointment with a community midwife (n = 31) in north-east England will be screened for alcohol consumption using the consumption questions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C). Those screening positive, without a history of substance use or alcohol dependence, with no pregnancy complication, and able to give informed consent, will be invited to participate in the trial (target number 120). Midwives will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to deliver either treatment as usual (control) or structured brief advice and referral for a 20-minute motivational interviewing session with an alcohol health worker (intervention). As well as demographic and health information, baseline measures will include two 7-day time line follow-back questionnaires and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3 L questionnaire. Measures will be repeated in telephone follow-ups in the third trimester and at 6 months post-partum, when a questionnaire on use of National Health Service and social care resources will also be completed. Information on pregnancy outcomes and stillbirths will be accessed from central health service records before the follow-ups. Primary outcomes will be rates of eligibility, recruitment, intervention delivery, and retention in the study population, to inform power calculations for a definitive trial. The health-economics component will establish how cost-effectiveness will be assessed, and examine which data on health service resource use should be collected in a main trial. Participants’ views on instruments and procedures will be sought to confirm their acceptability.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will produce a full trial protocol with robust sample-size calculations to extend evidence on effectiveness of screening and brief intervention.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43218782</p

What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>National cancer policies identify the improvement of care coordination as a priority to improve the delivery of health services for people with cancer. Identification of the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination is needed to drive service improvement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study was undertaken in which semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with those best placed to identify issues; patients who had been treated for a range of cancers and their carers as well as health professionals involved in providing cancer care. Data collection continued until saturation of concepts was reached. A grounded theory influenced approach was used to explore the participants' experiences and views of cancer care coordination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 20 patients, four carers and 29 health professionals participated. Barriers to cancer care coordination related to six aspects of care namely, recognising health professional roles and responsibilities, implementing comprehensive multidisciplinary team meetings, transitioning of care: falling through the cracks, inadequate communication between specialist and primary care, inequitable access to health services and managing scarce resources.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has identified a number of barriers to coordination of cancer care. Development and evaluation of interventions based on these findings is now required.</p

Quality of Life After Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy or Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Stage I/II Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Background:\ud Breast cancer patients’ quality of life (QoL) after surgery has been reported to improve significantly over time. Little is known about QoL recovery after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in comparison to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).\ud \ud Methods:\ud 175 of 195 stage I/II breast cancer patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30: one day before surgery (T0) and after 6 (T1), 26 (T2), 52 (T3) and 104 (T4) weeks. Of these, 54 patients underwent SLNB, 56 SLNB+ALND and 65 ALND. General linear models and paired T-tests between T0–T4 and T1–T4 were computed. Complications, radiotherapy and systemic therapy were added to the model.\ud \ud Results:\ud Significant time effects were found on physical, role and emotional functioning. Physical and role functioning decreased between T0 and T1. At T4, SLNB patients’ functioning had increased to their T0 level; ALND (+/– SLNB) patients’ functioning had increased, but had not improved to T0 level. Emotional functioning increased linearly between T0 and T4. At T4, emotional functioning was significantly higher in all groups as compared with T0. No significant group or interaction (time × group) effects were found. Complications and chemotherapy had a significant negative effect on role, emotional and cognitive functioning. Complications had a significant effect on social functioning also. Effect sizes varied between 0.00 and 0.06.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud Two years post surgery, breast cancer patients’ QoL is comparable to that shortly before surgery. Women rated their emotional functioning as even better. SLNB is not associated with a better QoL than ALND. However, undergoing systemic therapy and/or experiencing complications affects QoL negatively